Профиль

Yes I think they’ve strategically avoided picking corridors with these parking trade offs like Foothill or High, while focusing on the easier wins via road diets As much as I would like movement on those corridors, imo getting wins on the board and getting people comfortable has been a good call

Oaklanders largely support protected bike lanes and we have a great transpo dept trying to implement the citywide bike plan despite paying 1.5x peers for infrastructure. S.F. and Berkeley’s problems are its political insistence of treating every district or street like a fiefdom Cf a network.

As someone who used to pull obstruction permits at Oakland Building/Public Works, this is true. It wasn’t true prior to 2014. The traffic control plans then were rubber stamped without any thought to pedestrian impacts. Combo of OakDOT and massive BVSP construction changed that.

It's interesting to see a local elected official zero in on high share of professional services costs - a real problem - and then pivot to creating a new, untested locally-controlled project development/delivery entity that is wholly staffed by consultants. And then do nothing as costs spiral.

Does this blog post address why there were zero SB 79 applications from January to June as noted by housing policy expert Derek Thompson?

hell yes

$10bn to support bus/surface rail network service planning and programmatic transit priority please

6 TPH to Salesforce and 2 TPH Redwood City via Dumbarton.

Related to the concept of being an informed owner with public sector staff making most decisions.

Would prefer the state just self-insure and manage the risk rather than transferring it to private consultants who don’t have great incentives or deep pockets.

My limited understanding is that it is program managed, planned, procured and project managed in-house but some of the design, engineering and traffic modeling is done via on-call bench consultants. That’s a good setup imo.

This post brought to you by my seven year old figuring out that dwells and equipment have impacts on Gold Runner scheduling.

This will probably get better in the future with Newsom's 6/26 transit EO that instructed Caltrans to create new standards to facilitate transit on the State Highway System. But it's still not clear whether Caltrans staff will be the lead designers (they should). www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/u...

On the other end of the spectrum, county-driven BRT projects on Caltrans ROW hire consultant designers and then have to pay Caltrans engineers to review the consultant designs and design variance requests (bc BRT treatments on urban highways inevitably run afoul of Caltrans standard specs).

An enterprising city could decide to implement bus priority, including center lanes, if it knew its service goals and was willing to defederalize. That's what SF did with its Muni Forward Program. www.sfmta.com/reports/fast...

FTA and MPO/State planning and funding is designed to deliver a "project" (e.g. BRT) rather than deliver a service outcome (trip time reduction of 10m and 90% OTP). The professional services required to meet project grant reqts - both technical and political - are considerable.

Nathaniel Owings of SOM: “to work, we must have volume… Volume meant power.”

He wouldn’t be wearing a suit at all

Producers see what Apple general counsel actually dress like > nope we’re not doing that

Wonder if they would be negatively polarized by a similar article in the NYT about WSP, Parsons, AECOM dominating the infrastructure industry.